Things went badly from the opening gambit, when Wells claimed the report confirmed what the Baillieu government “has been saying for some time, which is that the carbon tax will hit Victoria first and it will hit us hard".

Bam goes the quiz show buzzer. That is not the correct answer. The government has been saying for months that Victoria would be hit “hardest" by the tax. Deloitte’s report explicitly says that Queensland and Western Australia will be worse off, so too will NSW and the Northern Territory, at different stages, out to 2030.

Confronted with this finding from his own report, Wells was unfazed.

“We believe that over the longer term Victoria will be hit the hardest," he said.

He did get something right when he explained that Deloitte had reasoned Queensland’s and Western Australia’s faster growing and more mining-dependent economies would be hit harder than Victoria’s.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

Wells then, as Premier Ted Baillieu did on radio earlier, claimed that the report revealed Victoria would, by 2015, shed $6 billion from its economy and have 35,000 fewer jobs.

Both Wells and Baillieu claimed that the modelling relied on the federal Treasury’s modelling in reaching its conclusions.

Wells’s own press release said the Deloitte work “replicates" the federal modelling.

Wrong again. Deloitte again explicitly and in some detail outlines some “fundamental differences" between its assumptions and the federal Treasury’s. Contradicting his own press release Wells volunteered that, yes, there were two important differences.

He said they related to the federal government’s view on wages growth and the speed of transition to less carbon-intensive energy sources.

However, Deloitte explains it has its own macro-economic parameters different from those of the federal Treasury making it impossible to replicate the Commonwealth’s analysis. It also makes a very different assumption on the level of carbon abatement that will occur onshore rather than through purchase of offshore permits.

Pressed to answer if he agreed with Deloitte’s reasoning on domestic abatement, Wells gave the following answer: “The reality is that there will be an increase in power costs and when you are talking about an increase in power costs and you are talking about compensation, when you are talking about compensation, then we maintain that it’s [sic] no point having compensation when you’ve lost your job in the meantime."

Asked if he had read the report, Wells ducked the question.

He was also asked about the government’s attitude towards the target of a 20 per cent cut in Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions prescribed in the state’s Climate Change Act.

“Well, it’s an aspirational target, the 20 per cent, and as I say it’s not in legislation, it’s an aspirational target," he said despite having voted in favour of the Climate Change Act last year.

The battle between Deloitte Access Economics and federal Treasury over the impact of the carbon price is one for the economists.

But the federal government may now have a rival for the title of worst selling job in the carbon debate.

Wells did have a sure answer on one question. Asked what Victoria had paid for the report he said: “I have no idea."